* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [ if this indeed is the case then i'll add irqs_off() checks to
> > DEBUG_MUTEXES=y, to ensure that the mutex APIs are never called with
> > interrupts disabled. ]
>
> Yes, I suppose so. But we're already calling might_sleep(), and
> might_sleep() checks for that. Perhaps the might_sleep() check is
> being defeated by the nasty system_running check.
ah ... indeed.
> There's a sad story behind that system_running check in might_sleep().
> Because the kernel early boot is running in an in_atomic() state, a
> great number of bogus might_sleep() warnings come out because of
> various code doing potentially-sleepy things. I ended up adding the
> system_running test, with the changelog "OK, I give up. Kill all the
> might_sleep warnings from the early boot process." Undoing that and
> fixing up the fallout would be a lot of nasty work.
OTOH, x86 was just fine last i checked, and it has alot more complex
bootup code than any of the other architectures (due to the sheer number
of x86 variants).
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
